IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [sidr] [Errata Rejected] RFC6487 (3168)

Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net> Sun, 12 May 2013 02:34 UTC

Return-Path: <danny@tcb.net>
X-Original-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: sidr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F1121F8956 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2013 19:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.437
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D2fkgM3kiBG4 for <sidr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 May 2013 19:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.friendswithtools.org (unknown [64.78.239.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA98621F871D for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 May 2013 19:34:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dspam (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 27611300015 for <sidr@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 May 2013 02:34:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-71-171-117-166.clppva.fios.verizon.net [71.171.117.166]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.friendswithtools.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A8569300010; Sat, 11 May 2013 20:33:58 -0600 (MDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
In-Reply-To: <5187C623.7070600@bbn.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 22:33:59 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <E823966B-4FC6-4CAF-9466-0C9BBE537BBE@tcb.net>
References: <20130506122439.12042B1E003@rfc-editor.org> <5187A268.5010703@cisco.com> <5187C623.7070600@bbn.com>
To: Andrew Chi <achi@bbn.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-DSPAM-Result: Whitelisted
X-DSPAM-Processed: Sat May 11 20:34:00 2013
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899
X-DSPAM-Improbability: 1 in 9809 chance of being spam
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
X-DSPAM-Signature: 518eff9842071669715695
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, 2013+at, 0.01000, to+#+the, 0.01000, to+#+the, 0.01000, Cc*sidr+#+#+#+ietf.org, 0.01000, Cc*sidr+wg, 0.01000, the+#+#+of, 0.01000, Cc*wg+#+sidr, 0.01000, 2013+#+11, 0.01000, based+on, 0.01000, Cc*sidr+#+list, 0.01000, Cc*wg+list, 0.01000, on+the, 0.01000, is+a, 0.01000, From*Danny+#+danny, 0.01000, From*Danny+#+#+tcb.net, 0.01000, need+to, 0.01000, need+to, 0.01000, Subject*Re+sidr, 0.01000, From*Danny+McPherson, 0.01000, Cc*sidr+#+#+sidr, 0.01000, Cc*sidr+ietf.org, 0.01000, trying+to, 0.01000, they+#+#+#+the, 0.01000, we+should, 0.01000, Cc*wg+#+#+ietf.org, 0.01000, Cc*list+#+ietf.org, 0.01000, would+#+#+to, 0.01000
Cc: sidr wg list <sidr@ietf.org>, sidr-chairs@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [sidr] [Errata Rejected] RFC6487 (3168)
X-BeenThere: sidr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Interdomain Routing <sidr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr>
List-Post: <mailto:sidr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr>, <mailto:sidr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 02:34:06 -0000

On May 6, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Andrew Chi wrote:

> Is this really a technical change?  The document has two places that state X, and one place (citing 5280) that states Y.  This erratum replaces the Y statement with X.  All implementers have already implemented X since it's the stricter form of Y.
> 
> X = no other extensions are allowed
> Y = non-critical extensions MAY be ignored
> 
> If this truly is a technical change, then we should have an update doc.  But I'm just trying to minimize needless words.

Andrew, 
Would an implementer need to know the difference when writing code based on the current standards track RFC, or would they need to read the erratum?

-danny

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status